To comment scroll to the bottom of the entry. Your e-mail address and URL are optional fields.


2006 02 25
for whom the bell tolls
image
The Richview Memorial Cemetery, consecrated in 1853, now lies strapped in by the ramping arabesques of the busiest intersection in Canada. From the air, the junction of highways 401 and 427 has a sinuous and graphic beauty, though from the ground the stark sense of desolation becomes more apparent.

The location does not correspond to the cemetery idyll of natural beauty and calm usually attributed to final resting places in North America. There is no access to the site except by car. It is exposed with no shelter from trees or other wind breaks. The abrupt change in scale between grave stone and highway is brutal and the noise, proximity and speed of traffic is aggressive.

Presumably the inhabitants do not mind. And yet, the ensnarement of this particular plot of land is the result of a chain of decisions which imply certain things about our societal priorities and beg questions of our cultural motives.

Who do we build cemeteries for? The gods of our periodic table would have us convinced that our dears, once departed, leave behind nothing more crass than a residue of elements and minerals. So, by now if not always, we must be building cemeteries for ourselves to reinforce some idea of who we are or how we might endure. At what point does the individual tribute cease to matter to us as a society? Over the course of time for a family to forgets its loss? A few years? At the time a new highway to becomes desirable?

Perhaps the urban cemetery as we know it has become obsolete. It takes up valuable land in city centers that could be handled in other ways to both show respect to those who have died while also generating thoughtful spaces that give back to the life of the city and its inhabitants.

Imagine a monument to remembrance where names of the deceased were engraved and remains stored highly efficiently set within a commemorative park with trees, pavilions, ponds, sports fields, and play equipment. Funeral fees and donations could be used to fund and dedicate park infrastructure, landscaping, jungle gyms and even the ubiquitous park bench.

What better way to acknowledge death than by underlining it with a celebration of life? With that attitude, our cemeteries might be less likely to be entombed by off-ramps. [Grant Hutchinson / superkul ]
[email this story] Posted by superkul inc., a r c h i t e c t on 02/25 at 05:09 PM
  1. You suggest the need for new kinds of storage facilities for the dead based on the above example, yet it does not appear that the cemetery is in any way at fault. Rather, it is the road that encroaches. As the living always do, and as they must, although not by necessity so invasively. It is hardly a new problem, either: growing Roman cities regularly overran their own ‘cities of the dead’. Many cultures have dealt with the problem in ways similar to those you suggest, gathering up the bones, after a time, for storage or disposal elsewhere, thus making already sanctified burial places available for new deaths. The difference, though, is that these sanctified burial places were usually allowed to remain. We know what happened to the Romans.

    You speak of cemeteries and parks as though they are separate things. Yet, in both northern Europe and North America, most cemeteries were designed as parks—as ‘garden cemeteries’—and were intended to serve as places of repose where people might stroll and contemplate the moral (and mortal) lessons invoked by the natural scenery around them, by the proximity of life and death. You might respond that rollerblading is frowned upon in cemeteries, and you would be right. But a century ago, guards patrolled New York’s Central Park to prevent people from playing. The difference is not so sharp.

    I agree that we might benefit from new kinds of spaces for the dead. But I think of “efficiency” as a kind of forgetting. Relics, even derelict ones, remind us of our past, and of the horizon of our own mortality.

    Those who are interested might enjoy reading about the ‘natural death’ movement, which extends to advocacy for natural burial settings, including woodland cemeteries, where the dead are buried plainly and are not embalmed. Graves are marked only naturally, and the dead return to the soil. But in cities, graves which are not clearly marked are too likely to end up under condominiums. In Toronto, the grave taboo appears to be one of the few safeguards natural spaces have left.

    (Fascinating and provocative post, by the way. I’m especially intrigued because this was the subject of my doctoral work.)

    Posted by Amy Lavender Harris  on  02/25  at  07:07 PM

<< Back to main



Toronto News
MESH Cities
Spacing
Blogto.com
CBC Toronto
Torontoist.com
Toronto Galleries



Related Links
Toronto Stories by
Stats
Toronto Links
Your Opinions


Other Blogs
News Sources
Syndicate